Our Government: Local, State, and National: Idaho Edition Part 4

The Second Continental Congress, 1775.--Before adjourning, the First Continental Congress provided for the meeting of another congress, in May, 1775, unless the causes for colonial grievances should be earlier removed by the English government. But other measures of repression were quickly pa.s.sed, and before the Second Continental Congress met, the battle of Lexington had been fought and the American forces were blockading Boston. This congress convened in Philadelphia May 10, 1775, and continued in session, with adjournments from time to time, until May 1, 1781. All of the colonies were represented. Like previous congresses, this was, at first, merely an advisory body, but necessity compelled it to act as a real government. It took control of military affairs, provided for a currency, threw open American ports to the ships of all nations, and did whatever else the necessities of the time seemed to demand. Having been appealed to for advice, this congress took a most notable position in recommending that new forms of government should be established in the several States. By the year 1777 ten States had framed new const.i.tutions. It furthered independence by appointing a committee to draft resolutions based on the ideas of independence then everywhere present. The Declaration of Independence was the result.

The Articles of Confederation.--Franklin early saw the need for a more effective government than that of a revolutionary a.s.sembly. On July 21, 1775, he presented to Congress a plan for "perpetual union." Nearly a year elapsed before a committee was appointed to prepare some form for confederation to be entered into between the colonies. Another period of a year and five months was to go by before the report of this committee was adopted by the Continental Congress. It was then submitted to the State legislatures for approval. After three years and a half, on March 1, 1781, Maryland, the last State, was induced to ratify the Articles of Confederation. The adoption of these articles is one of the most important events in the history of our nation. While the Articles of Confederation must always be regarded as a weak instrument of government, we must not forget that the Continental Congress was then working out problems in the province of government that were almost wholly new. The solution, faulty as it was, went far to establish the place of the written Const.i.tution as a basis for government.

Said John Fiske: "Almost everything else in our fundamental inst.i.tutions was brought by our forefathers in a more or less highly developed condition from England; but the development of the written Const.i.tution, with the consequent relation of the courts to the law-making power, has gone on entirely upon American soil."

Practical Working of the Government.--Conditions soon proved the articles unsatisfactory. The States were almost independent of the central government. There was no separate executive power to enforce, and no judiciary to interpret the laws. The nation was deep in debt, and without means for payment. Paper money of the period was worthless, and debtors were rebellious. Disputes between the various States brought them to the verge of civil war. Each State had its own system of duties and imposts, which led to great confusion in commerce. No important resolution could be pa.s.sed in Congress without the votes of nine States.

No amendment was possible, except by the votes of all the States.

Congress became constantly weaker as various members resigned to accept positions under State authority. In that most dangerous period of our history, extending from 1783 to 1788, aptly called the "critical period," it became constantly more apparent that government under the Articles of Confederation was a failure. Fortunately, in this hour of gloom, there came forward Washington, Hamilton, Madison, and other leaders, who were prepared, if need be, to make compromises, but who were determined to preserve the elements of the union already secured.

SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTIONS AND REFERENCES.

1. How was the stamp act regarded in the different colonies as shown by the addresses made and resolutions offered? Hart, Contemporaries, II, 395-411; Tyler, Patrick Henry (American Statesmen), Chapters 5 and 6.

2. Do you know of other instances in our history where a stamp act has been pa.s.sed? How was it regarded? In what ways was it different from that of 1765?

3. What was the origin of the committees of correspondence and how did they aid in unification? Sloane, The French War and the Revolution, 161, 162; Hart, Formation of the Union, 57.

4. a.n.a.lyze the Declaration of Independence, and select from it the causes for the Revolution.

5. Why was the adoption of the Articles of Confederation so long delayed? Hart, Contemporaries, II, 539-543; Fiske, The Critical Period, 93, 95; Walker, The Making of the Nation, 6; Hart, Formation of the Union, 93-95.

6. Read the Articles of Confederation (Appendix B).

(_a_) How was the Congress composed? (Art. V.) (_b_) The number necessary for a quorum? (Art. X.) (_c_) The powers of Congress? (Art.

IX.) (_d_) Powers of the separate States (Art. VIII.)

7. Defects of the Confederation. Hart, Contemporaries, II, 591-603.

8. What was the att.i.tude toward union during the period 1783-1788? Were there notable bonds of union even at this time? What other influences have increased this sentiment? Fiske, Critical Period, 55-63; Walker, The Making of the Nation, 7, 8.

9. President Roosevelt said, in an address delivered April 9, 1902, at Charleston, S.C., "When four years ago this nation was compelled to face a foreign foe, the completeness of the reunion became instantly and strikingly evident." What is his meaning? How does the statement ill.u.s.trate the point emphasized in this chapter, that a common danger produces union?

10. Describe the character of the money used in 1783 and succeeding years. What was its influence? Fiske, Critical Period, 162-186.

CHAPTER VI.

THE CONSt.i.tUTIONAL CONVENTION.

Events Leading to the Const.i.tutional Convention.--Among the many difficulties that arose during the period of the confederation were constant disputes between Virginia and Maryland over the navigation of the Potomac River and Chesapeake Bay. Finally, in March, 1785, commissioners from these States met at Alexandria to consider these difficulties. The outcome of the meeting was that Virginia proposed a convention and called for delegates from all of the States to meet to consider how commerce should be controlled. Delegates from five States only were present at Annapolis on the day appointed, September 11, 1786.

Nothing permanent could be accomplished with so few States represented.

Before adjourning, however, they agreed to a resolution, framed by Alexander Hamilton, which proposed the calling of a convention at Philadelphia to amend the Articles of Confederation.

The Federal Convention, 1787; Delegates.--All of the States, Rhode Island excepted, were finally represented in this, one of the most notable conventions in the history of the world. Among the fifty-five delegates a.s.sembled were many who had already been conspicuous in public affairs. They were the choice men of the States from which they came.

Twenty-nine of the number were university men. Washington and Franklin were present, and Washington was unanimously chosen president of the convention. Neither of these men took an active part in the debates; but their presence gave inspiration to the other members, and they had untold influence at critical times. Among the ablest members were Alexander Hamilton of New York; James Madison of Virginia; Oliver Ellsworth and William S. Johnson of Connecticut; James Wilson and Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania; Rufus King of Ma.s.sachusetts; and Charles C. Pinckney of South Carolina.

Our Knowledge of the Convention.--The Convention lasted from May 25 to September 17, 1787. The sessions were secret. Fortunately we are not dependent on the secretary's report alone for our knowledge of the meetings.[8] Mr. Madison seemed to understand the full meaning of the convention from the first, and decided to give an accurate account of the proceedings. He wrote: "Nor was I unaware of the value of such a contribution to the fund of materials for the history of a Const.i.tution on which should be staked the happiness of a people great even in its infancy, and possibly the cause of liberty throughout the world." His notes were purchased by the government from Mrs. Madison, in 1837, for the sum of thirty thousand dollars. They were published as "Madison's Journal of the Const.i.tutional Convention."

[Footnote 8: It was published in 1819 as a part of Volume I of "Elliot's Debates."]

Plans for a Government; Virginia Plan.--The magnitude of the labors of this convention can be understood only when we read the report of the discussions as given by Madison. It was at once determined that no time should be lost in patching up the articles, but that a new Const.i.tution should be formed. Two sets of resolutions were early submitted, each setting forth a plan of government. The Virginia plan was largely the work of Mr. Madison. It provided for the establishment of a national government with supreme legislative, executive, and judicial powers. The legislative power was to be vested in a Congress of two separate houses.

The executive was to be chosen by both houses of Congress and the judiciary by the Senate. Representation in both houses of Congress was to be based on population or the contributions to the support of the government. This scheme was fiercely attacked by the delegates from the small States, for it would clearly give control into the hands of the more powerful States.

The New Jersey Plan.--The New Jersey plan, presented by Mr.

Patterson of that State, was agreed upon by the members from Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland. This Small-State plan, so called, provided for a continuance of the government under the Articles of Confederation. They were to be revised in such a manner as to give Congress the power to regulate commerce, to raise revenue, and to coerce the States. The Small-State party insisted that the Virginia plan, if adopted, would destroy the sovereignty of the States. They would rather, they said, submit to a foreign power than be deprived of equality of suffrage in both branches of the legislature.

Madison, Wilson, King, and other leaders of the Large-State party declared that the basis for the new government was to be the people and not the States; that it would be unfair to give Delaware as many representatives as Virginia or Pennsylvania. After many days of fruitless debate, a compromise, sometimes called the "First Great Compromise," was presented and finally adopted. This provided that the House of Representatives should be composed of members elected on the basis of population. In the Senate, large and small States were to be equally represented.

The Slavery Problem; Second Compromise.--How was the number of the representatives to be found? Were slaves to be counted a part of the population? A heated debate arose over these questions. The delegates from South Carolina maintained that slaves were a part of the population and as such should be counted. The answer was made that slaves were not represented in the legislatures of that and other States; that slaves were regarded in those States merely as so much property, and as such ought never to be represented. Finally, when it seemed that the work of the convention must fail, a compromise, known as "the three-fifths compromise," was accepted. This provided that all free people should be counted and three-fifths of the slaves.

The Third Compromise.--Slave-trade and commerce were the causes for a third compromise. South Carolina and Georgia desired to have the importation of slaves continued. Some of the other Southern States and the Northern States generally were opposed. The New England members were anxious that the National government should have complete control of foreign commerce. This was resisted by some of the Southern delegates, who feared that the importation of slaves might thereby be prohibited.

Finally, a compromise was agreed upon which gave Congress power over foreign and interstate commerce, but forbade any act which might prohibit the importation of slaves before 1808. It was also agreed that a tax of ten dollars each might be laid on all slaves imported. While the entire Const.i.tution may be said to be made up of compromises, the agreement upon these three rendered the further work of the convention possible.

Signing the Const.i.tution.--Gouverneur Morris was selected to give the doc.u.ment its final form. The clear, simple English used is due largely to him. After thirty-nine members, representing twelve different States, had signed the Const.i.tution, the convention adjourned. While the last signatures were being written, Franklin said to those standing near him, as he called attention to a sun blazoned on the back of the President's chair: "I have, often and often, in the course of the session, and the vicissitudes of my hopes and fears as to its issue, looked at that behind the President, without being able to tell whether it was rising or setting; but now, at length, I have the happiness to know that it is a rising and not a setting sun."

Difficulties of Ratification.--The convention submitted the Const.i.tution to Congress. Here, for eight days, it was attacked by its opponents. Finally, Congress pa.s.sed it on to the State legislatures. It was sent by them to State conventions elected by the people. This ratification was provided for by Article VII of the Const.i.tution, as follows: _The ratification of the conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Const.i.tution between the States so ratifying the same._

The period included between September 28, 1787, when Congress transmitted the Const.i.tution to the State legislatures, and June 21, 1788, when New Hampshire, the last of the necessary nine States, ratified, was one of the most critical in our history. Political parties, in a truly National sense, were formed for the first time.

Among the leaders who defended ably the views of those who opposed the ratification of the Const.i.tution were Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, Elbridge Gerry, and George Clinton. It was urged that there was no bill of rights,[9] that the President would become a despot, and that equality of representation in the Senate was an injustice to the larger States. "Letters from the Federal Farmer," prepared for the press of the country by Richard Henry Lee, set forth clearly the views of the Anti-Const.i.tutional party.

[Footnote 9: A bill of rights, in which the idea of the rights of man were set forth, was a significant part of nearly all the State const.i.tutions. Englishmen, generally, had been familiar with the formal statement of these principles since 1689, when William and Mary accepted the Declaration of Rights as a condition of their receiving the crown of England. During the same year Parliament gave the Declaration of Rights the form of a statute, under the name of the Bill of Rights. Among other rights it demanded that the king, without the sanction of Parliament, should not raise an army, secure money, or suspend the laws; also, that the right of pet.i.tion, freedom in the exercise of religion, and equality under the laws were to be granted all subjects.]

"The Federalist."--No influence was more noteworthy in bringing about ratification than a series of political essays afterward collected under the name of "The Federalist." It is considered to-day the best commentary on the Const.i.tution ever written. Alexander Hamilton originated the plan, and wrote 51 of the 85 numbers. James Madison wrote 29, and John Jay 5.

The Influence of Washington.--Washington was again a giant in his support of the Const.i.tution. In a letter to Patrick Henry he early sounded an effective note of warning against anarchy, expressing the very fear that finally led many in the conventions to vote for the Const.i.tution. He wrote: "I wish the Const.i.tution which is offered had been more perfect; but it is the best that could be obtained at this time, and a door is open for amendments hereafter. The political concerns of this country are suspended by a thread. The convention has been looked up to by the reflecting part of the community with a solicitude which is hardly to be conceived, and if nothing had been agreed upon by that body, anarchy would soon have ensued, the seeds being deeply sown in every soil."

Ratification Secured.--Delaware, the first State, ratified December 6, 1787, without a dissenting vote. Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, and Connecticut followed quickly. Much depended on the action of the Ma.s.sachusetts convention. After prolonged debate, the delegates were finally influenced by the statement that amendments might be made, and they ratified the Const.i.tution by a vote of 187 to 168. The ninth State was secured in the ratification by New Hampshire, June 21, 1788. It was not until November 21, 1789, however, that North Carolina voted to accept the Const.i.tution. Rhode Island held out until May 29, 1790.

The New Government Put into Operation.--When the ratification of the ninth State had been secured, Congress appointed a special committee to frame an act for putting the Const.i.tution into operation. It was enacted that the first Wednesday in January should be the day for appointing electors; that the electors should cast their votes for President on the first Wednesday in February, and that on the first Wednesday of March the new government should go into operation. It was not until April 1 that a quorum was secured in the House of Representatives, and in the Senate not until April 6. The electoral votes were counted in the presence of the two houses on April 6.[10] The inauguration of President Washington did not take place, however, until April 30.

[Footnote 10: New York did not choose electors. North Carolina and Rhode Island, as we have seen, had not ratified the Const.i.tution.]

Origin of the Const.i.tution.--Before making a study of this epoch-making doc.u.ment, let us inquire briefly as to its origin. An a.n.a.lysis of the Const.i.tution shows that there are some provisions which are new and that English precedent had an influence. The main features, however, were derived from the const.i.tutions of the States with whose practical workings the delegates were familiar. The following well-known statement is an excellent summary: "Nearly every provision of the Federal Const.i.tution that has worked well is one borrowed from or suggested by some State const.i.tution; nearly every provision that has worked badly is one which the convention, for want of a precedent, was obliged to devise for itself."

Authority and Objects of the Const.i.tution.--It was evidently the intention of the framers of the Const.i.tution to found a government deriving its authority from the people rather than from the States. The purposes for which this was done are set forth in the following enacting clause, commonly called the preamble:--

"_We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Const.i.tution for the United States of America_."

This clause was attacked vigorously by the opponents of the Const.i.tution, and especially in the Virginia and the North Carolina conventions. Said Patrick Henry: "And here I would make this inquiry of those worthy characters who composed a part of the late Federal Convention.... I have the highest veneration for those gentlemen; but, sir, give me leave to demand what right had they to say, 'We, the people'?... Who authorized them to speak the language of, We, the people, instead of, We, the States? If the States be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great, consolidated, national government of the people of all the States." It was argued, on the other hand, by Randolph, Madison, and others, that the government, under the Articles of Confederation, was a failure, and that the only safe course to pursue was to have a government emanating from the people instead of from the States, if the union of the States and the preservation of the liberties of the people were to be preserved.